The monetary system - Root of all evil?

[honest intellectual]

I was wondering what everyone thinks about the abolition of the monetary system and money. In an ideal communist society, do you feel there is any need for money? Che himself was against the monetary system.

[vox]

This, to me, is a rather self-defeating question, for we can only regard money in the current state of a monied economy.

Could it be otherwise, ever? Sure. Why not?

However, to deal with money in the current state is legitimize the social relations of capitalist production, for it is only in such relations that it finds its value.

To take the values of one socio-economic system and apply them to another is disingenuous at best.

Capital exchange in a socialitst system may resemble exchange in a capitalist system, but there is no reason to think that they would be at all the same.

vox

[honest intellectual]

Tell a capitalist you think it should be abolished and they'll look very confused and confussed and they'll say "But...what other kind of system could you have?"

I was shocked by all the sentimentality shown over the "loss" of national currencies due to the euro changeover. I even saw an article in the paper about the "death" of the Irish pound, which was entitled "Ode to a dear friend". Are these people fucking blind?

[Hillman]

What's so bad about money? Why can't it be used in a socialistic country?

[TheDerminator]

Money is only a feature of primitive socialist societies, an advanced socialist society is built upon the common trust of the majority of its members, and that trust is the basis of socialist ethos. We can easily distribute goods, and we can easily prevent abuses from the unethical. All we require is the majority to be ethical and then we do what the bougeoisie did to protect its own interests: We enshrine the ethos of the majority within law, and law as well as control of supply prevents the unethical from indulging in their selfish unethical desires. There is plenty wrong with money, and it possesses an alienating quality described in my treatise entitled Heresies on God and Freedom. derminated.

(Edited by TheDerminator at 7:43 pm on Feb. 10, 2002)

[Hillman]

Derminator! You are living in the past. Technology is becoming the number one dominance in the world. Do you understand this not? A non-money world can work with a bunch of tribes running around and trading chicken feet for wood. But guess what? The world isn't like that anymore.

Because of the advancements of humanity, money must _always_ exsist. You are living in the past, Derminator.

[Supermodel]

If there were no currency, some other notion of value surfaces, be it a labor-hour or a clam or a paper transaction.

Come to think of it: I get paid in a paper transaction and I spend mostly using plastic which I pay off in paper. I ordered a book in French last night in Euros from French Amazon.com (at least I think I did). So currency and money means nothing, only the relative value and purchasing power.

Trusting society to give to me according to my needs is just not going to happen, even if Che himself were in the big chair.

But if you're sure, derminator, I'll take care of it all, just forward all your money to me......

[TheDerminator]

Singing "Money money money, it aint a poor woman's world"
Yep, Supermodel hit the nail on the head. Trust.
You see that is the huge problem in the bourgeois epoch. You have no trust in humanity, because you do not even trust yourselves.
You see human history reflects the development of ethos within our societies and your belief in the necessity for money is only based upon your experience of this society.
Within this shit society, I too am necessitated to have money, but it does not mean that money is a historical necessity for humankind in a socialist society. I live on this shit planet, and I know, I am not living within a socialist society.
Hillman you have maybe seen The Terminator films once too often. The dominance is bougeois dominance. Technology can be our buddy.
Vox] You are the self-defeated before you answered the question! You are the self-defeated, because you are offering no tangible alternative to the evil monied system. We cannot say to people your monied system creates diabolical inequalities, but I am damned if I know the answer, and then walk away scratching our heads. We have to have the answer or it shows a profound poverty in our vision of socialism.
However, you are right to see the disgenuine within, the sort of sophistry being used by those, who confuse the necessity for money in this shit society, and the lack of necessity for it in a truly socialist society.
The problem, herein, is not just the self-defeatism of what you say, but what you do not say.
There is no real vision in your assessment Vox.
If you admit the huge obscenity in the fact that the group of the one hundred most wealthy people on this planet have probably amongst them trillions of dollars in their private bank accounts, whilst some people work their guts out for under $30 dollars a week and I daresay even less in some countries, then you have to address not just the bastardom of the obscenity, but what is our alternative to replace that bastardom.
Your lack of vision is providing no real alternative to the monied system, and we cannot be vague about our alternative, we have to say exactly what the difference between global bourgeois economy and global socialist economy. The difference is no fucking money!
And we possess the technology to remove money, not tommorow Vox, but today, at this very moment we possess that technology. The logistics are not the problem Vox. You are the problem.
The problem is there has been an inadequate comprehension of what exactly is the socialist alternative to the monied Frankenstein, which is the creation of the bourgeoisie. Without creating a tangible alternative, people do not see any other road, than the one they are on.
You have no vision of a socialist alternative, because you do not see the difference between the two types of economies. Yes, the technology is with us right at this moment, but I am not an idealist Vox, the technology exists today, but the socialist movement to create such a society does not exist, and part of the paralysis of our movement, only a part, is the problem I pointed out. You. People like you. No vision, and thus no real alternative to all the fucking bastardom. And it is fucking bastardom Vox. Not to possess a strong vision of the other of this bastardom is a weak socialist position, and your weakness, is the weakness of the movement in paralysis. Not much of a movement therein. derminated

[honest intellectual]

If you have £300 (can't do the euro sign in this font) it doesn't actually exist. It's just computerised code or cash that symbolises the money. Whereas if you have 300 potatoes they do exist and they'll rot if you leave them there too long.

I don't know what that means. I heard it from another commie friend. But I agree that money is evil, it should be got rid of. Bartar would be almost as bad though. A simple "from each according to his abilities..." system is my ideal.


A non-money world can work with a bunch of tribes running around and trading chicken feet for wood. But guess what? The world isn't like that anymore.
Hillman, the whole point is to change the world and the system bby which it's run

[MindCrime]

Money is a kind of promise for services rendered. You cant really quantify a workers hours, so you give them little paper promises. It is a note from one group to the next, promising to give them something in return for their work. In a system where there is no division of groups internally, there is no need for promises between them. Therefore under a full communist system, money is non existant.

[Guest]

totally off the topic, but I thought this was nice, check out www.ratm.com Rage against the machine's site, the intro, (you need flash to view). Basically deface their most prized posession, the almighty buck, leave a lasting message, "Free Mumia" "You are not a slave!", who is going to destroy that power to purchase, and who at the same time is not going to read the note. This has probably been done, seen before but it is new to me. And Derminator, I trust myself, just as I trust those akin to my beliefs, but granted not everyone in the world is raised in the ideal situation, and they run blind to truths which you speak of, but alas, as my uprising is only based on the capitalist structure, I have sucked on the teet of the fattest pig in the world, and it has given me many liberties many in this world, in fact over three quarters do not posess, proper nutrition, shelter, and I am greatful, but I wouldn't put my trust in humans individually, for sure on the whole, overtime, the righteous will prevail, but, and as I lack so much knowledge (i am just 17) on socialist ideologies, I just cannot see your puritan views come to reality, anywas, peace all,

[Xanderbeaux]

not having a currency would only take us back in time and to think about how long it took us to evolve into what we are noe taking money away would take us back to the cave days.

[The Iron Heel]

The monetary system is not the root of evil, capitalist relations are. Moreover, it's not the monetary system per se. but rather who controls it, dominates it, and augments it to suit their own (class) interests.

Currecy is a necessity in the temporary socialist State. We cannot go back in time to communalism and have economic intercourses on the basis of barter.

Yes, there is something appealing in communalism for many of us since it represents the goal in a higher level. When human society reaches the final phase of communism, then the role of currency (or currency alltogether) may as well be abandoned in this higher-form of (primitive) communalism.

Until this epoch takes place (and unlike the revolution, Marx veiwed this change as evolutionary and gradual), a socialist society must compromise the vague ideals reserved for this final phase. The 'work according to your abilities, get paid according to your needs' is only to be realized (from a Marxist standpoint) in this last phase (temporary socialist states transforming into a 'communist association'). In the temporary socialist State, certain capitalist-like incentives still need to be utilized, people cannot be changed overnight (nor in one or two generations), and said State must ensure it's own survival.

Lenin wrote an interesting critique on the so-called ultra-leftists in Germany who wanted to establish the phase of communism right there and then (skipping the Dictatorship of the Proletriat phase). Lenin proved to my satisfaction that while claiming radicalism, there groups were ultimately reactionary, failing to comprehend their short-sightedness.

In this current historical-economic phase of capitalism (i.e. late monopoly capitalism) we have an intensification in the internationalization/diversification/expansion/etc. of capital. This is also similarly reflected in their effectiveness of controlling the monetary system to suit their own interests (not a new thing, but the degree of organization, efficacy, etc. is new).

Currency, the medium for exchange value, in my opinion, is not the cause of capitalist & imperialist domination, and if a socialist nation does away with currency I am convinced they will be doomed, utterly doomed. If you say that surplus value, is the root of capitalist hegemony you're getting closer though. :)

Edit: Gah, I'm so inarticulate when I first wake up.



(Edited by The Iron Heel at 9:38 pm on Feb. 17, 2002)